Scots voting no to independence would be an astonishing act of self-harm

England is dysfunctional, corrupt and vastly unequal. Who on earth would want to be tied to such a country?To vote no is to choose to live under a political system that
sustains one of the rich world’s highest levels of inequality and
deprivation.

Imagine the question posed the other way round. An independent
nation is asked to decide whether to surrender its sovereignty to a
larger union. It would be allowed a measure of autonomy, but key aspects
of its governance would be handed to another nation. It would be used
as a military base by the dominant power and yoked to an economy over
which it had no control.

It would have to be bloody desperate. Only a nation in which the
institutions of governance had collapsed, which had been ruined
economically, which was threatened by invasion or civil war or famine
might contemplate this drastic step. Most nations faced even with such
catastrophes choose to retain their independence – in fact, will fight
to preserve it – rather than surrender to a dominant foreign power.

So what would you say about a country that sacrificed its sovereignty
without collapse or compulsion; that had no obvious enemies, a
basically sound economy and a broadly functional democracy, yet chose to
swap it for remote governance by the hereditary elite of another
nation, beholden to a corrupt financial centre?

What would you say about a country that exchanged an economy based on enterprise and distribution for one based on speculation and rent?
That chose obeisance to a government that spies on its own citizens,
uses the planet as its dustbin, governs on behalf of a transnational
elite that owes loyalty to no nation, cedes public services to
corporations, forces terminally ill people to work and
can’t be trusted with a box of fireworks, let alone a fleet of nuclear
submarines? You would conclude that it had lost its senses.

So what’s the difference? How is the argument altered by the fact
that Scotland is considering whether to gain independence rather than
whether to lose it? It’s not. Those who would vote no – now, a new poll suggests, a rapidly diminishing majority – could be suffering from system justification.

System justification
is defined as the “process by which existing social arrangements are
legitimised, even at the expense of personal and group interest”. It
consists of a desire to defend the status quo, regardless of its
impacts. It has been demonstrated in a large body of experimental work,
which has produced the following surprising results.

System justification becomes stronger when social and economic
inequality is more extreme. This is because people try to rationalise
their disadvantage by seeking legitimate reasons for their position. In some cases disadvantaged people are more likely than the privileged to support the status quo. One study found that
US citizens on low incomes were more likely than those on high incomes
to believe that economic inequality is legitimate and necessary.

It explains why women in experimental studies pay themselves less
than men, why people in low-status jobs believe their work is worth less
than those in high-status jobs, even when they’re performing the same
task, and why people accept domination by another group. It might help to explain why so many people in Scotland are inclined to vote no.

The fears the no campaigners have worked so hard to stoke are – by
comparison with what the Scots are being asked to lose – mere shadows.
As Adam Ramsay points out in his treatise Forty-Two Reasons to Support
Scottish Independence, there are plenty of nations smaller than Scotland
that possess their own currencies and thrive. Most of the world’s prosperous nations are small: there are no inherent disadvantages to downsizing.
Remaining in the UK carries as much risk and uncertainty as leaving.
England’s housing bubble could blow at any time. We might leave the
European Union. Some of the most determined no campaigners would take us
out: witness Ukip’s intention to stage a “pro-union rally” in Glasgow on 12 September.
The union in question, of course, is the UK, not Europe. This reminds
us of a crashing contradiction in the politics of such groups: if our
membership of the EU represents an appalling and intolerable loss of
sovereignty, why is the far greater loss Scotland is being asked to
accept deemed tolerable and necessary.

The Scots are told they will have no control over their own currency
if they leave the UK. But they have none today. The monetary policy
committee is based in London and bows to the banks. The pound’s
strength, which damages the manufacturing Scotland seeks to promote, reflects the interests of the City.

To vote no is to choose to live under a political system that
sustains one of the rich world’s highest levels of inequality and
deprivation. This is a system in which all major parties are complicit,
which offers no obvious exit from a model that privileges neoliberal economics over other aspirations.
It treats the natural world, civic life, equality, public health and
effective public services as dispensable luxuries, and the freedom of
the rich to exploit the poor as non-negotiable.

Its lack of a codified constitution permits numberless abuses of
power. It has failed to reform the House of Lords, royal prerogative, campaign finance
and first-past-the-post voting (another triumph for the no brigade). It
is dominated by media owned by tax exiles, who, instructing their
editors from their distant chateaux, play the patriotism card at every
opportunity. The concerns of swing voters in marginal constituencies
outweigh those of the majority; the concerns of corporations with no
lasting stake in the country outweigh everything. Broken, corrupt,
dysfunctional, retentive: you want to be part of this?

Independence, as more Scots are beginning to see, offers people an
opportunity to rewrite the political rules. To create a written
constitution, the very process of which is engaging and transformative.
To build an economy of benefit to everyone. To promote cohesion, social
justice, the defence of the living planet and an end to wars of choice.

To deny this to yourself, to remain subject to the whims of a distant
and uncaring elite, to succumb to the bleak, deferential negativity of
the no campaign, to accept other people’s myths in place of your own
story: that would be an astonishing act of self-repudiation and
self-harm. Consider yourselves independent and work backwards
from there; then ask why you would sacrifice that freedom.Twitter: @georgemonbiot